Category Archives: CUSD 200

The good news is: Lacrosse players and their parents showed up to support one item in the consent agenda, which did pass:

Approval to Recognize Lacrosse as a High School Sport Under a Fully Funded Parent Agreement

It is a pity that the district could not find any money to put toward this sport. After all, it is for the kids.

The other good news (as expected) the administrators, including superintendent Schuler, accepted a salary freeze rather than the 1% originally proposed.

The bad news, no benefit concessions from the administrators. The district will still spend $600,000 for their pension contributions. They still pay less for insurance benefits than teachers pay – which is less than many in the private sector pay. They still have their end of career bonus. They claim they discussed it twice in close session and comparable districts do the same. There has been no real discussion in open meetings. And I can’t help but wonder if there wasn’t side lobbying. So, who is greedy? Who is in charge?

Facilities Plan Update-Early Learning Center

They are still planning on a new, larger facility for the district early learning center. Many scenarios were presented. The ones they will continue to investigate are

Renovate and Expand the current Jefferson Early Learning Center, or

Build a new pre-school as an addition to Monroe Middle School with a connecting hallway. This option includes land swap with the park district.

By doing an addition, rather than a new building, they claim they can do it without a referendum. And after 2 failed referendums, they’d rather not try again. The price of each scenario was in the ball park of $20 million. Jim Mathieson questioned the cost. He said we need to bring it down to $15 or $16 million. They are looking at spending reserves and hiring a firm to do fund raising on behalf of the district.

Yes, I agree, we need to do something to improve the Jefferson building – at least to maintain it. But, should we spend our reserves when we cannot count on the school funding from the state? The district just received the third out of four payment from last year. Even once the school funding bill passes, how will it be paid when the state’s piggy-bank is empty?

A year ago, I reminded the board that public funds are for public purposes only. Then I went over a list of spending on the adults with no educational purpose. I expected the board to direct the district to cut this out. Nothing has changed. Why wasn’t this cut rather than increasing student fees? Why do they keep crying poor when this is going on? Who is in charge? The school board? The superintendent? Or do we just do what everyone else is doing?

My comments from July 2016 when I told the board about the amount of money spent on celebrations and gift for the staff are available on youtu.be/BwFikoSGLiw?t=1m46s (2 minute mark)

A friend put in a similar FOIA this year – Nothing has changed! The entire file is 71 pages, I’ve included a sample below:

There is a board meeting tomorrow – 8/16/2017, 7:00 PM at the School Service Center (130 West Park Ave. Wheaton, IL).

At this meeting they plan to approve the 2018 budget, then this year’s contracts for the 50 administrators whose contracts expired 6/30/2017. It appears they will be taking no raises. However, I have spoken out in June and July about aligning their benefits with the teacher benefits and doing away with the lump sum they will get when they retire. (I’ll post more on this tonight)

With a budget review set for August 16, and the top administrators currently working on expired contracts, a little public pressure could help convince the school board and the administrators that CUSD 200 cannot continue business as usual. Taxpayers and teachers should insist that administrators pay their own pension contributions just like teachers do. This would save the district about $600,000 per year and slightly reduce future TRS pension obligations.

A little history:

It appears that the district was in good shape financially back in 2001, and had to make major cuts by 2010. That is a time frame in which many in the private sector were taking pay cuts or at least not seeing the raises they had been getting when inflation was so high. School districts including CUSD 200 were giving step & lane increases as well as end-of-career salary spikes. They had yet to curtail anything.

The Education Fund: total expenditures, salaries and benefits had gone up significantly faster than inflation from 2001 to 2010. They were running out of cash by the end of May each year. The balance would have been negative in 2008 without Hubble construction loan, and in 2009, 2010 & 2011 the district issued tax anticipation warrants in order to avoid being in the “Red.” In May 2012 the district received $14,478,784 from a capital improvement grant. This year, at its low point (May), the districts end of month balance on hand was down to $6.3 million. With State funding being unreliable, reductions should be made now while renewing the administrator contracts. And a precedence set for next year when the teacher’s contract will renew.

I have recommended that all administrators pay the same for benefits as teachers do. And that the post-career-compensation (lump sum at retirement that replace the salary spike) needs to go!

Take a look at what parents said in 2010 when student programs were threatened. This could happen again.

A public hearing will be held on August 16 at 7:00 p.m. prior to the Board Meeting for any community members who would like to share feedback and comments on the Tentative 2017-18 Budget.

I (along with everyone else on CUSD 200’s e-mail list) received this email about next year’s proposed budget being posted for public comment. Please take a look, and come comment if you have any feedback on it.

Board of Education Meeting HighlightsThe following are highlights from the July 12, 2017 meeting.

Tentative 2017-18 Budget posted for public review
The Tentative 2017-18 Budget is posted for public review at the School Service Center and on our website. Important points to note for the balanced $166 million FY18 operating budget include:
· Total revenue from the State of Illinois, just over $18 million, is projected comparably the same as last year. With the passage of a State budget, the District is hopeful that revenues will flow from the State as expected.

· Expenditures on high priority capital projects (roofing and flooring) is approximately $3 million, which is an increase from the prior year.

· Deferred expenditures including the hiring of 2 vacant administrative positions ($174K), Drivers Education simulators ($162K) and purchase of new student information system ($270K) allowed for the increased allocation to facility projects.

· A 2% decrease in purchased services, 4.8% decrease in supplies and 2.2% decrease in out-placed tuition from the prior year’s Education Fund budget have also allowed for an increased allocation to high priority facility projects.

· While there are contractual salary increases for teachers and support staff, overall salary expenditures have remained relatively flat since 2010.

The District ended last year spending $390,000 less than budgeted. The District is still owed in excess of $5.6 million in funding from the State of Illinois. The District expects to receive just over $18 million annually from the State, which is approximately 11% of the District’s total operational revenues. Any excess revenue this year will be dedicated to the Board’s fund balance (savings). The Board and staff continue to find difficulty in addressing high priority facility projects due to inconsistent payments from the State of Illinois.

In spite of challenges in State funding, the District continues to be responsible stewards of public tax dollars. At $12,636 per student, District 200’s operating expense per student is BELOW the state average of $12,821; our FY16 Fund Balance (savings) was at 29.7%; our Standard & Poor’s Bond Rating is AA Stable; our State Board of Education Designation is Financial Recognition (the highest possible); and our balanced FY17 budget marked seven consecutive years of a balanced budget in spite of dwindling State revenue that has decreased by over $40 million since 2008.

A public hearing will be held on August 16 at 7:00 p.m. prior to the Board Meeting for any community members who would like to share feedback and comments on the Tentative 2017-18 Budget.

Enrollment projections updated, utilization of buildings analyzed
Every three to four years, the Board of Education updates their enrollment projections. Prepared by University of North Carolina demographer Dr. John Kasarda, the 2017 Enrollment Projections Report is an update to the District’s 2013 Report. To prepare the report, Dr. Kasarda reviews population and housing dynamics and analyzes recent enrollment patterns, including comparing graduating seniors to incoming kindergartners, to make projections for future enrollment. Dr. Kasarda provides three series of projections: Series A (less students than anticipated), Series B (anticipated number of students) and Series C (greater than anticipated number of students). Historically, Dr. Kasarda’s Series B projections have shown accurate for enrollment across the District.
In conjunction with enrollment projections, the Board of Education asked staff to take a deeper look at classroom utilization to provide further understanding of how we are using the space at all of our schools. The full presentation and 2017 Enrollment Projections are available on our website. After reviewing enrollment projections and building utilization, key takeaways include:

Based on Series B projections, enrollment district-wide should remain stable for the next 10 yearsand consistent to today’s enrollment of just under 13,000

Based on Series B projections, the classroom utilization analysis indicates that all schools are needed and appropriately utilized

Special populations that impact space, like special education and English learners, are expected to increase

Preuhs & Associates provides update on fundraising feasibility study
Through the Vision 2018 Plan, a goal was identified to explore alternate revenue sources, when available, to support district needs. As part of the Facility Master Plan, an option had been discussed to conduct a fundraising campaign to raise dollars for special projects in the April 4 Facility Referendum Plan like an early learning center, science labs, a performing arts space and libraries.

Conducting a feasibility study is an important step in determining levels of private gift support available in the community. The study will be used as a research tool to determine if a fundraising campaign is viable in our community. Earlier this spring, the Board hired Pruehs and Associates to conduct the study, with half of the cost being covered through private sources.

To complete the study, Preuhs and Associates is interviewing key community leaders and historically generous individuals to gather feedback. While the study is expected to be completed later this summer, an update at the Board Meeting revealed that:

private fundraising is an idea that is supported by many and willing volunteer leaders and potential funding sources are being discovered;

collaborations are being considered and potential leaders are being recommended; and

building trust in the District should continue to be a focus of the Board and staff.

Facilities Committee prioritizes projects, identifies scenarios for an early learning solution
As previously reported, following discussions and review of the Post-Referendum Survey results, the Board’s Facilities Committee has reviewed and re-prioritized facility projects and has decided that for right now, the Board focus their facility planning efforts around the most critical projects, capital projects and secure entries. The current focus on capital projects and secure entries is significantly scaled back from the complete April 4 Facility Referendum Plan that included multiple other projects.

The updated estimated cost of capital projects and secure entries (going out 8+ years, including escalation and loss of referendum plan efficiencies) is approximately $93 million in work. That estimate includes $5 million in capital projects at Jefferson Early Childhood Center. Given the amount of capital improvement projects at Jefferson, the Facilities Committee is also reviewing options for our early learning needs that do not include construction of a new building.

Based on those recommendations, the Board’s Finance committee, along with District and School Administration, will begin developing a plan to allocate $8 million toward capital projects and secure entries for the 2018-19 School Year. It is expected that a proposed cost reduction plan for the 2018-19 School Year will be developed by early fall.

The current administrator contracts were approve last year at the June 8, 2016 board meeting as entries in the personnel report which was attached to the meeting’s agenda.

The salaries for our sample administrators are:Each received a 0.8% increase.

Several years ago I asked the board in my public comments if they had any idea what they had approved? The board packets listed who had contracts renewing, but nothing about salaries or benefits. I thank the board for including the administrator’s salaries in the personnel reports after that.

However, I don’t see a sample contract attached to last year’s agenda so that the board & public can know what benefits are included.

There is a finance committee meeting at 7:30 AM on May 31. Meeting Notice And the next regularly scheduled board meeting is 7:00 pm on June 14. That board meeting is when the administrative contracts should be approved. Expect the meeting notice to be posted on the preceding Friday. By law it must be available at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

The administrators contracts that I have were all for one year – expiring June 30, 2017. That is the end of next month! (correction the ones I have were for July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The renewed last year)

In my opinion:

The Board must know what is in the contract that they are approving – a sample admin contract should be attached to the meeting agenda.

ALL post career compensation must go!

Extra sick days for pension padding must go!

Administrators must pay their own pension contributions, just like teachers do – and no, we cannot give them large raises so that they see no loss in net pay. This is a perk they never should have had.

I was wondering just how much more generous the administrators’ contracts are than the Teachers’ contract. This posting will look at Holidays, vacation days, sick days and their affect on the pension/end-of-career payouts.The Sick Day Bank can be quite large at the end of a career. It can be used to increase the pension payout or to take a lump sum at retirement.

While looking at these detail, I noticed a couple perks in the latest teacher contract that were not in their previous contract, and I had not seen when the contract was approved. Note: the contract was not available until weeks after it was approved.

The latest WWEA contract increased the sick days allocate as well as the post-employment-compensation. Neither were in the highlights that were posted for board approval. Although the increase in post employment compensation was mentioned by board members as they voted for it.

The current teacher contract is for July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018.

The WWEA (teacher union) contract is negotiated with union reps on one side, and school administration on the other. For the current contract, no school board member was on the negotiation team. In fact, I was told they didn’t have anyone even watching.

Generally, the administrators will get what the teachers get and then some (like pension pick-up). Who is representing the taxpayers?

Leave of Absence

See the contract for the full set of rules and details for all types of leaves (seick leave, Bereavement leave, personal leave, Religious holidays, Parental leave, family medical leae act, general leave of absence, military leave, & Professional leave)

Administrators who work 12 months, have 260 working days
(364 days a year, 52 weekends is 104 days, 364-104 = 260)
They each receive 12 holidays, 23 vacation days, and 15 sick days.
Each can carry up to 36 vacation days to the next year
Up to 59 vacation days can be cashed in at the per diem rate at termination (retirement).

Vacation and Holidays

From Biscan’s contract (sample admin)

Note: the maximum number of vacations days that an administrator may have is 59. According to their current contracts days in excess of the 36 if not used are lost. This wasn’t always the case. For instance, Bill Farley cashed in 5 vacation days in 2013 for $3,606.19. I do not see this listed in Farley’s current contract, but we have a FOIA that lists this dollar amount. And it is in Dr. Schuler’s current contract

Bossier’s contract (the one grandfathered in with the 6% end of career salary spikes) allows excess vacation days to morph into unlimited sick days:

SICK LEAVE

From Biscan’s Contract:

What is this sick leave worth?

The maximum number of sick days to count towards pension service with TRS is 340, where 170 days = 1 year. Up to 15 sick days can be cashed in at the per diem rate at retirement (days count for one or the other, not both)

WWEA (teacher) contract is more generous

Why are they increasing the number of sicks days per year as the size of the sick bank grows? Could it have anything to do with TRS accepting up to 340 sick days as credit towards pension? I do not see a line about cashing in unused sick days at the per diem rate in this contract. pdf

From the WWEA contract for July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015 (no longer posted on the district web site) we know that this perk was new in 2015.

Was the school board aware of this increase in sick days for teachers as they approach retirement? The extra sick days were NOT in the contract highlights posted for the board to approve.

Contract approval

The contract was approved at a special board meeting on June 4, 2015. The contract was approved based on contract highlights .pdf which was made available approximately 48 hours prior to the meeting. At the time I questioned why they could not wait until the next week at the regularly scheduled board meeting. I also questioned the wisdom of passing it without actually seeing the contract.

The BOARD has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. Part of that is to be part of contract negotiations, not just a bystander who votes on what is brought to them. The boards failure to be a part of these negotiations is a failure of the board and another example of what is wrong with so many public officials. Disregard for the public is no longer being tolerated! CUSD 200 Board actions were no different than those of COD with their golden parachute votes.

Prior to the meeting I was advised that “They MUST recite key elements of the contract with enough information as to inform the voter of the actions being taken.”

From a 6/3/2015 email from Jan Shaw to a few friends regarding my thoughts for public comment:

3 year agreement covers the 2015-16; 2016-17; and 2017-18 school years

OK

and provides for a balanced budget based on current revenue projections.

OK

It also contains a limited re-opener memorandum to address any drastic changes in funding or revenue enacted by the legislature.

Sounds Good – want to see it

This agreement addresses staff professional development time,

OK

eliminates staff access to the State’s Early Retirement Option,

Good – does this affect the amount that is paid into the pension?

eliminates the salary step increment,

Define please? Doing away with steps? Or same chart for 3 years?

and includes increased staff contributions for health benefits.

Does it include a “Good for the Goose, Good for the gander” clause so that all administrators will need to pay into the pension and for health care like teachers do?

Not here, but section 12 of the existing contract gives a lump sum to retirees based on years of service (unless they opted for the old 6% for 4 year option) $500 per year-of-service

20 year = $10,000. ALL end of career goodies need to GO!

Missing minutes for 6/4/2016

The June 10, 2015 agenda include “Approval of Minutes – March 25, 2015 Open and Closed, May 13, 2015 Open and Closed, May 18, 2015 Special Closed, May 27, 2015 Open and Closed, and Approval to Destroy Recordings of Closed Sessions Prior to January 2014 as Allowable by Law”

The July 10, 2016 agenda has “Approval of Minutes – June 10, 2015 Open and Closed, and Approval to Destroy Recordings of Closed Sessions Prior to February 2014 As Allowable by Law”

Where are the 6/4/2015 minutes?

The podcast of the meeting

11:05 Dr. Schuler
15:55 Dr Rammer – what is in the contract.
16:20 board discussion – Brad Paulsen,
18:15 Dr. Schuler – overview of salary schedule.
20:40 Intihar
22:30 Swanson
24:30 Coghill
27:40 roll call vote with comments30:00 Gambiani’s comments as to why he voted “NO” (worth listening) “…Total salary increase approaching $6 million. Total salary percentage increases that could reach 8.5%. Total stipend increases of 6% and 50% increase in post employment payment. In the 2016-2017 school year, this district will enjoy a $4 million windfall, given the fact that 60 retiring teachers will be replaced with teachers at lower salaries. This situation presents the district with a unique opportunity to have access to funds that could be used for building maintenance… It is important to acknowledge that the district has numerous current and future financial challenges that can no longer be ignored. Unfortunately these available funds are being used to support the teachers’ contract…”

33:10 Vroman covers more (include $250 more per year for post-employment compensation)

Based on the comments, the board was aware of at least one change that was not in the posted highlights.

What was in the sick bank for those who negotiated this?

Overly Generous in the Past

The district was once far more generous with this for at least a couple administrators. Dr. Catalani was the Superintendent from 2000 to 2007.

Sorrick had 33.026 years of service credit plus 1.974 year for unused sick-leave credit (total 35)

Her service included 1.026 years purchased credit for private school service.

From TRS she received a $23,001.62 refund ($18,592.62 for “2.2 refund” and $4,409.00 for not using the early retirement option)

From CUSD 200, she received lump sum payments of $ $21,085.22 ($6,487.76 for 53.2 vacation days and $14,597.46 for 18 sick leave days)

Sorrick’s end of career raises were 6.26%, 20%, 0%, 6% and 6%. Her contract ended in 2009 and was extended to 2010 and 2011. Her 20% raise came 2008 – three years earlier than contracted – the contract called for 20% for the LAST year worked. It appears to have been effective the day after Superintendent Catalani retired and on the day Dr. Drury began. We never found anything to show that it or the 6% raises for her last two years were approved by the board. We are still paying for this as it increased her pension for life.

Lori Belha retired in 2011

Belha had 37 years of service credit plus 1.97 year for unused sick-leave credit

Her service included 10 years purchased credit for out of system service.

From TRS, she received a $28,105 refund ($23,784.95 for “2.2 refund” and $4,320.21 for not using the early retirement option)

From CUSD 200, she received lump sum payments of $32,889.26 ($25,200 for 59 vacation days and $7688 for 18 sick leave days)

Belha’s end of career raises were 6.95%, 18.47%, 0%, 6% and 6%. Same comment as above, although I wonder if her 20% was put into effect a month or 2 earlier.

I had submitted a FOIA to Wheaton-Warrenville, CUSD 200, for some administrator contracts last summer [2016].

I was wondering just how much more generous they are than the Teachers’ contracts. First thing we confirmed is that while teachers make their own pension payments, the district pays the employee portion for administrators. Checking the compensation report we discovered that this cost the district $602,454.89 in 2016 [correction – thee FOIA was summer 2015 – time flies].

The bulk of the administrator contracts matched Biscan’s and were for July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. I will use it as a sample.

One, Bossier is different. She had a grandfathered contract with the pension spike and she was on the retirement track. I believe the last of the employees with this 6% end-of-career option retired in 2016.

Superintendent, Dr. Schuler’s contract is unique. It is a multi-year contract (Sep 2, 2014 through June 30, 2018). Available on the district website: Superintendent Contract

We also have some older administrator contracts which were even more generous.

These contracts contain some benefits that exceed what is in the teacher’s contract (WWEA) – available on the district website: link to contract

COMPENSATION

From Biscan’s Contract:

In Bossier’s contract the following paragraph was included. She was grandfathered into the old contract that offered 6% end-of-career spiking.

We have made public comments for years, telling the board that end-of-career salary spikes MUST GO! and Then all post employment compensation must go!

The school District sent an email to everyone on their email list asking for our feedback. I’m sharing a portion of it here, because most community members who do not currently have student attended D200 school will not have seen this.

On April 4, the community stated that they did not support the facility plan put forth by the Board of Education…

The Board has opened a community survey to gather feedback on the April 4th Facilities Referendum. The responses received from this anonymous survey will make an important contribution as we identify the next steps to address our facility needs. In order to gather the most comprehensive feedback from a broad representation of our community, I ask that you:
[Please] take the survey… https://goo.gl/forms/gJuACd6N3Afu0lfG3
The survey will be open from today through Friday, May 19.
Thank you for taking a few minutes to share your feedback with us.

To find information about Candidate or Political Action Committees (PAC) spending & donations start at http://elections.il.gov/

General:
Any candidate or political group that spent more than $5,000 must file reports. The “yes” campaign for the Wheaton-Warrenville, CUSD 200 referendum was mainly funded by the Parent Teacher Associations (PTA). These groups are 501(c)3 non-profits. I suspect that each took a vote at a regular meting with the typical few in attendance. How do the bulk of the parents feel? Are they aware that PTA being politically active could jeopardize its non-profit status?

Note: the quarterly report lists $12,425.10 Contributions, which is slightly less than the sum of the donations by listed contributors: $12,869

Ivor Andrew a.k.a. Boost Marketing is owned by Keith and Susan Booton. They were paid approximately $20,000 by the district for referendum videos and apparently handled “Yes” marketing materials. The note for their donation was for “Graphic design and copy writing services” which is most likely donated labor.

Captive Reasources, LLC
Found on-line: captiveresources.com/contact-us/America’s Alternative Insurance Specialists
Schaumburg, IL
I did not find them listed on the district website.But wondering: Do they have anything to do with D200 insurance?

Individual donors:

Corry was on Wheaton city council and she was the co-chair of engage200 committee

Hupp was on the engage 200 committee

Triscik in a member of the PTA council

Dan & Lisa Wagner are professional political fundraisers and were paid staff for politicians. They headed the failed 2013 “Jefferson Yes” campaign.

NON-profits and PACs
Tax exempt 501(c)3’s are allowed to give up to 10% to lobbying efforts, but nothing to candidates or political action committees (PAC). The referendum committee is a PAC. These PTA’s could be endangering their non-profit status and their donors’ charitable donation claims. I was told this by several people, who are involved in non-profits. I have not found any case law to verify the cautions.

It appears that many of those voting “NO” did not know the candidate positions. The “Yes” side most likely did.

In 2017 the four winners received

7,792 Ginna Ericksen (union endorsed)

7,485 Brad Paulsen (union endorsed)

6,325 Rob Hamlin (union endorsed)

7,091 Jim Mathieson (union endorsed)

7460 #yes

2017 Challengers

5,463 Harold Lonks

5,289 Tom Hudock

5,435 Neil Harnen

5,696 Marcus Hamilton

8903 #no

The challengers could have won in 2017.

There were 1,443 more “No” votes than “Yes” votes.

How many voted for the referendum but not candidates?

total voting for referendum is 7460 + 8903 = 16,363.

total candidate vote 50,576 divided by 4 is 12,644 (minimum number of voters who voted for candidates).
The difference 16,363 – 12,644 = 3,719
So at least 3,000 voters left the candidates blank (a few may have voted for 1 to 3 but not 4).

Adding 3,000 to the actual vote counts for the challengers, they could have had: